William J. Brennan, Jr.

Name: Blystone v. Pennsylvania — Dissenting Opinion
Author: William J. Brennan, Jr.

Blystone v. Pennsylvania — Dissenting Opinion

Summary

“Blystone v. Pennsylvania — Dissenting Opinion”, is a work by William J. Brennan, Jr.. It explores elements such as death penalty, jury and defendant.

Quotes from Blystone v. Pennsylvania — Dissenting Opinion (William J. Brennan, Jr.)

William J. Brennan, Jr., Blystone v. Pennsylvania — Dissenting Opinion

“ Just as a jury must be free to consider and weigh mitigating circumstances as independently relevant to the defendant's moral culpability, see Penry, supra, at 319, 109 S.Ct., at 2947, a jury must also be able to consider and weigh the severity of each aggravating circumstance. The weight of an aggravating circumstance depends on the seriousness of the crime-a significant aspect of the defendant's moral culpability. Thus, a reasoned moral response to the defendant's conduct requires the consideration of the significance of both aggravating and mitigating factors. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr., Blystone v. Pennsylvania — Dissenting Opinion

“ Indeed, the prosecutor argued that because the jury had already found an aggravating circumstance by finding petitioner guilty of robbery, the statute mandated that the death penalty be imposed unless the defendant proved at least one mitigating circumstance.
"Our law doesn't permit the jury to impose the death penalty or impose a life sentence as they feel it should be, but rather there are certain specific times when the death penalty should be imposed and there are certain specific times when it should not be imposed. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr., Blystone v. Pennsylvania — Dissenting Opinion

“ As the majority fails to recognize, under the Pennsylvania statute an aggravating circumstance does much more than "channel" the jury's discretion: in the absence of mitigating factors, it mandates the death penalty.
This Court has never held that a legislature may mandate the death sentence for any category of murderers. Instead, a legislature's role must be limited to the definition of the class of death-eligible defendants. A legislature does not, and indeed cannot, consider every possible fact pattern that technically will fall within an aggravating circumstance. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr., Blystone v. Pennsylvania — Dissenting Opinion

“ We have long held that the ability of the sentencer to consider mitigating circumstances is a necessary-not just a sufficient-condition for the imposition of the death penalty. The defendant's right to have a jury consider mitigating circumstances is a fundamental part of the jury's role in a capital sentencing case which this Court has stringently protected. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr., Blystone v. Pennsylvania — Dissenting Opinion

“ A mandatory death penalty statute treats "all persons convicted of a designated offense not as uniquely individual human beings, but as members of a faceless, undifferentiated mass to be subjected to the blind infliction of the penalty of death." Ibid. Thus, the Court held that the "fundamental respect for humanity underlying the Eighth Amendment requires consideration of the character and record of the individual offender and the circumstances of the particular offense as a constitutionally indispensable part of the process of inflicting the penalty of death." ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr., Blystone v. Pennsylvania — Dissenting Opinion

“ Allowing the jury to weigh the aggravating circumstance as a means of making an individualized sentencing determination no more permits the jury to exercise unbridled discretion than allowing the consideration of mitigating circumstances. Woodson held that an individualized determination that the death sentence is appropriate does not violate Furman. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr., Blystone v. Pennsylvania — Dissenting Opinion

“ Past convictions of other criminal offenses can be considered as a valid aggravating factor in determining whether a defendant deserves to be sentenced to death for a later murder, but the inferences to be drawn concerning an inmate's character and moral culpability may vary depending on the nature of the past offense. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr., Blystone v. Pennsylvania — Dissenting Opinion

“ Although both the Texas and Pennsylvania statutes contain mandatory language, the Texas statute upheld in Jurek does not deprive the jury of its ability to determine the propriety of the death sentence in a particular case. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr., Blystone v. Pennsylvania — Dissenting Opinion

“ See id., at 309-310, 92 S.Ct., at 2762-2763 (Stewart, J., concurring) (death sentences at issue were "cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual . . . [T] he petitioners are among a capriciously selected random handful upon whom the sentence of death has in fact been imposed") ; id., at 313, 92 S.Ct., at 2764 (WHITE, J., concurring) (" [T] here is no meaningful basis for distinguishing the few cases in which [death] is imposed from the many cases in which it is not") . ”

William J. Brennan, Jr.

Summary

Quotes from Blystone v. Pennsylvania — Dissenting Opinion (William J. Brennan, Jr.)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature